I've recently read one of your articles on the Discord, Zano, where you acknowledge that the individual mandate is wrong, but you still argue that Obamacare is overall good for the nation. Perhaps Obamacare is an overall benefit to the nation. I don't believe that it is, but I will hypothetically grant you the point—my problem with Obamacare is that it is unconstitutional and my problems with you go much deeper.

I know that you are going to find this redundant, but it is the central point that you refuse to acknowledge—the difference between a quantitative argument and a "principled" qualitative argument. It's not that the individual mandate is one of the few problems with the legislation and that the virtues of the law so out-weigh the problems that Obamacare should be supported. You seem to recognize that the 'Individual Mandate' is unconstitutional, because it deprives Pokey McDooris of his unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet you still support it? This is the height of hypocrisy and I’m used to just dealing with your usual depths of depravity.

When a person recognizes that a legislation is unconstitutional, they do not have the right to support such legislation, as a matter of fact, they have an obligation to oppose it. You realize that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the 20 plus executive amendments to Obamacare are also unconstitutional). This is the principled flaw of your position, of which you have not addressed.

Here’s my 'angle' on the principles of our constitutional rights, and the possible differences we have on this subject:

1) All human being are endowed by their Creator by certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s important to recognize that our constitutional rights are given to each and every human being as a gift from their Creator. These rights are not dependent upon human beings. Certain governments recognize my unalienable rights, and certain governments don't recognize my unalienable rights; but no human power can take away my unalienable rights.

The core difference between our views on constitutional rights relates to our understanding of where those rights come from. I claim they are given to us by God; but you deny a God who grants us rights. So this is your problem, Zano. I know that you believe in Constitutional rights, but where do they come from? If you deny a Creator, then you are forced to either ignore the issue or admit that our constitutional rights are merely granted to us by human beings, and therefore they cease to be 'unalienable,' since human beings can in fact take those rights away. If fickle human beings grant us our rights, then fickle human beings do in fact have the "right" to take our rights away. Because if God doesn't exist, then all things are permissible, um, except the things you do in your spare time.

Lucky for you, Zano, that God does indeed exist and not knowing the truth does not stop the truth from being true. It's a choice between 'power or truth'. The kingdoms of the world indoctrinate us to submit our rights to the powers that be; the Kingdom of God assures us that we have been specially created by God Himself, and that God has granted us certain rights, regardless of what the kingdoms of the world decide.

This is the core difference in everything, both religion and politics, that we debate. So answer me Zano, from where do we get our constitutinal rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I'm waiting....